Blue Origin will offer dual launch capability similar to Ariane does now. Blue Origin to offer dual launch with New Glenn after fifth mission - SpaceNews.com
Don’t conflate the two. Obviously it depends on the analyst (it’s not like there’s a certification or anything) but typically the outside analysts are pretty on top of it. They don't get paid to be wrong...
Yeah, that was always their plan, but good to hear they're openly marketing it now. The biggest reason others don't do it is because of the complication of bringing two spacecraft schedules together. Ariane is in the unfortunate position of basically being the only heavy launcher that actually has to make money as a commercial business (even despite their heavy euro subsidies). The reality of the industry is that to-date and in the near future, dual launches are one of the most effective ways to amortize cost over more than one customer...thus improving margin. That said, given the BO bankroll and the likelihood that dual launches will lose their attractiveness as time moves on (due in no small part to the low cost and increasing frequency of falcon launches) its actually kind of interesting that BO is pursuing the concept. Certainly until spacecraft start getting built for 7m fairings its kind of imperative if they want to maximize traditional GTO capacity, but you'd think the satellite industry would quickly figure out how to maximize the additional capacity... If it matters I confirmed that the dual launch is not just marketing material targeting Ariane. They're actually working on it.
Teslarati article on Blue Origin. Blue Origin continues SpaceX-competitive rocket R&D with hot-fire engine tests
New Glenn gets pushed back a year. First launch in 2021. Blue Origin resets schedule: First crew to space in 2019, first orbital launch in 2021
SpaceX forges ahead while everyone else backs up... I didn’t realize BO was based in Kent, WA. I happen to be here right now on a trip. It’s a pretty small town, but close enough to Seattle to attract tech talent I suppose.
Its more manufacturing, and in that respect there's plenty of A&D in the area. Obviously Boeing's aircraft facilities are all over, but they also used to have a huge space facility there with a massive man-rated vacuum chamber--the place is a bit smaller these days but there's still presence. Leo Stella is also setting up their production line in Tukwilla. And of course if you keep the 'burbs factor going, SpaceX is up in Redmond (though where their full rate production will be located is still a bit of a question mark).
Nice to see someone else doing the obvious and returning the first stage. Interesting that they have two engines for the second stage.
Thats an animation.. Hope they do it. Good luck. A comment on that YouTube video, "No reentry burn?" Also no thrusters to orient the booster correctly? and why is the ship moving so fast?
It's just a copy of the Spacex strategy- why would they post this on their website if they are basically second after Musk? Is it advertising to prospective satellite clients? I would have thought something that differentiated them would be better?
They're going to be a little different. The bigger fins means that they intend to do more aerobraking in reentry. A bit more like Falcon Super Heavy than F9 and FH. Moving ship versus stationary ASDS is another difference. No soot or scorch marks in the paint which can be done if you are rich enough (sarc). Considering its size, its payload capacity is quite small even though it has an enormous fairing. Everyday Astronaut did a good video on what to expect from New Glenn:
Yeah, its mostly a factor of "what do we need...and...do we have that already?" To be fair, it probably was in the cards for a while. Develop the BE3 for New Shepard, then bolt it to the NG upper stage. Not really related, there are multiple nozzle motors out there too. Its more of a glider to the Falcon core 'faller'. That's why the control surfaces at the top of the core stage are rotated 90 degrees from Falcon's grid fins. The name of the game is taking energy out of the core so it can land softly. Falcon does that by firing the motor twice (Re-entry and landing), which of course it means the thing has to carry fuel to do so. Speed = stability. 1. Its close to SpaceX's vision, because that's a solid vision. There's no point in trying to make a square tire work, as it were.... 2. This clip has nothing to do with customers, it is all about creating buzz about BO. It is exactly what spaceX does, so there's absolutely no foundation for trying to poke at BO. 3. As previously noted, the glider is definitely a differentiating take on the landing, as is a fast moving ship instead of a slow moving and bobbing barge. Not night and day, but definitely different...and most importantly, not necessarily worse.
Was also surprised there's no reentry burn planned for New Glenn. Those two fixed strakes mounted on opposite sides of the booster must dissipate a bunch of speed. Combined with the 4 movable upper fins, BO engineers must have done wind tunnel tests to demonstrate they can reliably steer the booster. Landing on an underway vessel does make sense, it should provide more stability in rough seas at the critical moment of touchdown. BO describes their ship as being hydrodynamically-stabilized. The closest explanation I could find on that topic is here. Stabilizer (ship) - Wikipedia I'd be interested to learn about the performance of the 6 landing legs (with one leg out capability). From the BO website, they're supposed to "precisely balance and secure New Glenn to its landing on an ocean-moving platform". Unlike the F9 they don't appear to extend far from the base of the booster.
Thanks, interesting to see the design changes that people picked up on and are being discussed. Was puzzled as to how the booster did it’s “flip” maneuver without cold gas thrusters (didn’t see any evidence of them firing in the animation video) since at that point the booster is at too high an altitude to do that maneuver with fins only. It is “only” an animation” (which of course SpaceX has used to promote future vehicles as well) but I’m sure that BO will build the New Glenn and fly it, eventually.
New Glenn will have to have thrusters of some sort even though they are not shown in the video. You cannot maneuver outside of the atmosphere with fins and stabilizers, even though that happens in space operas regularly (ahem...Star Wars...). As I mentioned in post #21, I'm expecting there to be some spectacular failures to happen in the New Glenn development. I hope they don't but assuming BO will be able to do what SpaceX did without the learning process seems naive to me.
Yep, I’d bet on multiple impressive failures before BO gets it right. And then more occasional failures. It ain’t as easy as SpaceX now makes it look...except when there is yet another failure because a pump “stalled”!
Good interview with Bezos. I admire his spirt, and support the mission he has set out for Blue Origin. It’s interesting to contrast his goal with Elon’s goal. Bezos says: “we go to space to protect this planet...we also don’t want to face a civilization of stasis, and that is the real issue if we just stay on this planet,,,The solar system can support a trillion humans” and he envisions them living and working in space, not on the surface of planets or moons, but in something like O’Neil cylinders. It’s an extraordinarily bold, long term vision, perhaps even bolder than the SpaceX mission of establishing a self-sustaining human colony on Mars. Bezos says “One thing that I find very unmotivating is the kind of Plan B argument: when Earth gets destroyed, you want to be somewhere else. That doesn’t work for me. We have sent robotic probes now to every place in the solar system, and this is the best one. It’s not close. My friends who want to move to Mars, I say, do me a favor and go live on the top of Mount Everest for a year first, and see if you like it, because it’s a garden paradise compared to Mars.” And that is where I disagree with him. Yes, Mars is certainly quite inhospitable to human life, but there is good reason to believe that humans can live and work on Mars long term, in my opinion. I also think it will be somewhat easier to accomplish the SpaceX goal than building large structures in space, like an O’Neil cylinder or similar, where large numbers of humans can live out their lives. And I think Bezos is minimizing the existential short and long term risks that human civilization is facing. The risks are very real: just in my lifetime, for the first time in human history, people created two existential risks; nuclear war and climate change. Before I was born there were no human-created existential risks. And in the relative blink of an eye there are now two. In this century there is likely to be another; general AI, and there may well be more that I cannot even begin to envision, given the rapid pace of technological change. We need to get establish a self-sustaining large-scale human colony off Earth as soon as possible! Mars is one option, living in space is another, but I think more difficult, option. I support the goals of both companies, and I think it’s fantastic to have two companies focusing on radically decreasing the cost of getting to space. That is the key first step. How lucky am I to be alive to witness the efforts of Musk and Bezos!